Trickle-down
invite response
2014 Jan 21, 1:46am 59,448 views 301 comments
by Nullset ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 213 - 252 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
Even if you get 10 years out of a car you bought new for $20k,
I never bought a car for more than $10K.
Do you have a cellphone? That is at least another $50
You can get that for half with republic wireless.
Cable TV? $100
Completely unnecessary (TV at all actually).
Electricity, water, heating? At least $200.
Not unless you house women or kids.
I guess you never go to the doctor,
That's indeed a problem rooted in the extorting health care system - more reason to save on everything else.
Do you eat?
The less you eat the healthier you are usually - opt for less but organic or at least natural.
go out on a date, take a vacation, gym membership
Unnecessary, esp. gym membership. Go running, biking hiking and do strength work on the trails.
That budget is tight no doubt but should be entirely possible for a single person. The majority of the costs come from heavily regulated and protected/propped up sectors such as housing (go for roommates to save money) and health care of which health care is the hardest to avoid.
4 gallons of milk at $2.50 each; $20 on about 10lbs of other kinds of meats
Where are you buying milk for $2.50 a gallon? $2 per pound for various meats? What kinds of meats can you buy for $2 per pound? Even costco chicken breast is 3.50 per pound.
20-30 pounds of fruits and veggies for $30? Thats $1.50 per pound at most. Where?
Maybe russet potatoes you can get for $1.50 per pound. You can probably buy carrots or celery at that price. Doubt you are buying broccoli or blueberries on that budget.
Where are you getting your prices? 1996?
And yes vacation and dating is not necessary. You said you were spending less than $1000. Its bullshit.
4 gallons of milk at $2.50 each; $20 on about 10lbs of other kinds of meats
Where are you buying milk for $2.50 a gallon?
Costco price is $2.49/gallon.
$2 per pound for various meats? What kinds of meats can you buy for $2 per pound? Even costco chicken breast is 3.50 per pound.
Until about a year ago, Costo price of frozen boneless chicken breast was $2/lb. Now seems to be a little higher, whereas lean pork loin is $2/lb. A year ago, the two were the other way around. Pork shoulder can be had for less than $1.50/lb; so do chicken drumsticks.
20-30 pounds of fruits and veggies for $30? Thats $1.50 per pound at most. Where?
Maybe russet potatoes you can get for $1.50 per pound. You can probably buy carrots or celery at that price. Doubt you are buying broccoli or blueberries on that budget.
Costco Oranges are about $0.84/lb, bananas $0.40/lb, water melons $0.25/lb ($5 for a 20lb one). Buy 10lbs of those, and you will get your a couple pounds of $3.50/lb blueberries in that $1.50 average (not in winter, obviously).
Where are you getting your prices? 1996?
2013 and 2014.
And yes vacation and dating is not necessary. You said you were spending less than $1000. I said, and still say, bullshit.
I was. I was spending around $600 on personal expenses per month, not including housing, car or dating. The car was paid for long time ago, but even divided back in, still less than $1000/mo. Dating cost more only because I make substantially more than median income or what the girl does so I'm expected to pay for the dates; whatever I pay, she doesn't have to, so it should not be included in the budget of a person at or below median income. When I was making only median income or below, many years ago, I did not go to expensive places for dates. I still cook at home for some dates, and really enjoy the home made meals made by the girl when she treats me to a date.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 27, 8:37am
In other words, you are admitting that you don't have a counter-argument.
Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.
Income equality will always exist, but the widening gap is a symptom of the underlying fraudulent credit expansion sanctified by the government, as explained pretty well by KD in this article:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=227971
"The correct metric is not whether a CEO makes a higher multiple over the line worker than he did before but whether he makes a greater amount adjusted for monetary and credit expansion than he did before.
He does not. The problem is that the common man doesn't keep up!
Why has there been no income growth in excess of monetary inflation for the common man?
Because fraudulent credit expansion -- the lending into existence of spendable credit backed by nothing, and the hiding of the full extent of that leverage through selling people securities described internally as vomit to "investors" along with various forms of dodgy derivatives that require no daily marking to the market and posting of cash margin against underwater positions, along with various bogus monetary machinations such as QE makes possible that expansion of credit and thus the appearance of being able to keep up.
But in fact for the common man it is nothing of the sort.
The common man is induced to borrow not for three or four years to buy a car with 20-25% down but six or eight years while rolling the negative equity on his previous car into the loan; that is, borrowing not just with zero down but with an effective negative down payment. He is induced not to borrow for a house at 6% interest with 20% down but on a 1% "teaser" interest only note with zero down. He therefore is fraudulently led to believe he can "afford" to buy a house that is in fact priced at 2, 3, or even 5x what he can actually afford predicated on a fully-amortizing payment with appropriate limits on leverage (5:1) and a reasonable, risk-adjusted rate of interest. This in turn causes asset prices of all sorts to rise and further the cycle as now the so-called "lenders" can claim their "assets" are worth more -- yet another fraud as there is insufficient actual capital to purchase them were they to attempt to sell said assets into the market.
The fact is that this sort of lending is an outright fraud because no lender would actually lend their real, earned capital with this amount of leverage and at that rate of interest as any lender of actual capital would never lend more than he could recover from the asset if sold to someone paying with actual capital rather than borrowed ethereal funds.
How do we know this? Because there are real lenders who have real capital; they're known as "hard money" lenders. Go price actual money from them (since they have to have it before they can lend it) and tell me what it costs, along with the sort of terms they demand. That is the real cost of capital.
The banking system has conspired with regulators and Congress to defraud virtually everyone in the economy for the benefit of the few. The few -- that is, the CEOs of the world and other highly-compensated individuals -- fully understand the math and thus they refuse to work for less than a fair wage given the amount of credit expansion that is taking place.
But by and large these people are the ones committing the credit expansion, and they are selling it to the rest of you, whether it's 8 year car loans with negative down payments, zero-down house purchases with ridiculously-suppressed interest rates or something as simple as "$100 cell phones" that have an imputed $1,200 back-end charge in the contract over the two year period to pay for what is otherwise a $600 device. Incidentally, if you run the imputed interest rate on that "$100 cell phone" you'll find that it's in the neighborhood of 40%.
This is why the middle and lower class are being buried alive. Congress permits The Fed to intentionally violate its mandate because it too wants to spend more than it makes, and deficit spending cannot take place without that very same fraudulent credit creation.
It is that very fact that results in income inequality because it allows this paradigm to expand for years upon years. Unfortunately due to the laws of mathematics it cannot continue forever, and the properties of exponents guarantee that the longer this fraudulent system is allowed to continue the worse the correction will be when, not if, this practice is stopped."
Sums it up pretty well.
going on 100% ad hominn
Ugh. Now it's "ad hominem" added to "projecting"? This the two-step distraction of the impotent and the incompetent. Stop it! I expect you to at least dip in to your bag of formulaic one-liners.
What is this? 4th grade spelling class? Obviously the message got across despite the typo.
Now you are in full-blown brown-shirt National Socialist mode.
......and
your racist nature.
Is there an Asbergers school of Austrian anarchy? You can't get the social message can you? (Do you watch Bones?) Your tin ear for English slops over into your tone deaf reading of this entire forum. I'm one of the more liberal posters here and yet your want me to be a racist?
No I don't watch "Bones." Being "liberal" and being racist are not mutually exclusive: after all Hitler was the one who brought socialized medicine to Western Europe. It was not even co-incidental: a central planning nationalistic socialistic program would have to eventually resort to "us" vs. "them" when "other people's money" is used up and the pie is shrinking.
What ethnic expositions can you point to, hmmmm?
You are against anyone who doesn't fit your vision of "native" stereotype, just like the Nazi's idealized "blond and blue eyed Germanic race," which Hitler himself did even fit.
And further, my advocacy of national structure and cultural identity makes me a fascist, hmmm? Do you realize that by these standards EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM IS A RACIST FASCIST, everyone but your lapdog, Indigenous.
Your criticism of anyone and everyone who doesn't fit your "national structure" and "cultural identity" despite their belonging to this nation and this culture is what makes you a Racist and Fascist.
I think you're a Eurotrash trauma-child converted to America,
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm less than 1/32 European, and only spent time in Europe as a tourist.
Racism in America is a subset of American conservatism. If you don't get that you're an idiot.
Racism is the inevitable phase/result of any and all central planning philosophy / movement grinding to its pie shrinking stage. Only classical liberalism, i.e. individualism, you would wrongly consider now as "conservative," can sustain a live-and-let-live social outlook. Your disgraceful nativism while claiming to be a "liberal" is proof of the dehumanizing nature of any central planning philosophy/movement.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 27, 3:33pm
The thing is that Germany runs a trade surplus they do this by keeping interest rates low. China does the same thing by keeping interest rates low and by devaluing the Yuan. This means that Germany does to Europe what China does to the world.
When a country runs a surplus another country has to run a deficit there is no other way this can be.
Germany then can either increase household income or national investment. China keeps the investment high as they have a lower household income, as a percentage of GDP, than any other country. The investment then goes into dams, cities, railways etc.
Germany can then invest in public programs.
Germany can then invest in public programs.
Since Germany's surplus is at the expense of other European countries like Spain for instance. It forces them into spending, just like the US is forced into spending because of the trade surplus with China. (the US cannot do anything about this because of the reserve currency status) So the PIGS have to be considered when looking at the lower income people in Europe. This is because they are tied together by the Euro and cannot inflate their way out debt.
This is from a book called the "Great Rebalancing" by Michael Pettis
recommended by Mish. Not that you care but others may.
What the hell does ANY of that have to do with the subject? Since you appear to have skipped over it a SECOND time, I'll once again repeat what I wrote:
I don't think you really looked at the data I posted. The median income of the top 20% in Germany is only $53,978. In the U.S., it is $82,666. Yet the bottom 20% in German have considerably more than they do in the U.S. It is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth that is the problem. The U.S. has plenty of wealth; it's just hoarded by the investor class.
I can't wait to see what rambling irrelevant sidetrack you'll get on next.
A couple things to keep in mind:
1. Reality is an asshole.
2. Reality is full of shit.
Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.
Ask yourself, and tell that to yourself.
I don't think you really looked at the data I posted. The median income of the top 20% in Germany is only $53,978. In the U.S., it is $82,666. Yet the bottom 20% in German have considerably more than they do in the U.S. It is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth that is the problem. The U.S. has plenty of wealth; it's just hoarded by the investor class.
You are conflating wealth vs. income. The numbers are disposable income numbers, not wealth numbers. What's the difference between the two? A retired person can have a million dollar house but next to no income. At the other extreme, Warren Buffet has an annual income of about $30mil, but his net worth is $30bil; do you think he has lived for 1000 years? he's old, but not that old.
The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number. It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI. In many of these cases, the taxpayer paid medical bills alone can easily bankrupt a person making only the median of the top 20%; $80k can be burned up in a US hospital in a matter of a month (if not a week), not a year. The cash value of in-kind medical transfer is much lower in Germany.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 27, 4:06pm
You are conflating wealth vs. income.
Bullshit. I am conflating nothing.
The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number.
You are missing the point. If you can present DATA that show the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the U.S., please do so. Otherwise, your contribution to this discussion is not relevant. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are different ways to measure wealth and income doesn't prove anything.
It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI.
You obviously missed our previous discussion about transfers. Please scroll back up the page and re-read the thread before you make stupid assumptions that have already been refuted.
You are conflating wealth vs. income.
Bullshit. I am conflating nothing.
You cited (disposable) income numbers then talked about wealth and wealth distribution. Income is not the same as wealth. I already explained the difference between the two in the previous post. You will do better by reading it instead of emitting knee-jerk "bullshit."
The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number.
You are missing the point. If you can present DATA that show the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the U.S., please do so. Otherwise, your contribution to this discussion is not relevant. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are different ways to measure wealth and income doesn't prove anything.
hmm, I thought you were trying to prove that the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the US. In any case, I already explained in the previous post why the disposable income numbers are not the full picture. Medicine is much more expensive in the US, and for the bottom 20% in the US, medicine is provided essentially free of charge by taxpayers, yet not reflected in your numbers.
It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI.
You obviously missed our previous discussion about transfers. Please scroll back up the page and re-read the thread before you make stupid assumptions that have already been refuted.
Before calling people stupid, you can do better by paying attention to what I wrote: I made a specific distinction between in-kind transfer for medicine vs. cash transfer. The numbers you cited did not include in-kind transfer for medicine.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 27, 4:16pm
Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.
Ask yourself, and tell that to yourself.
Nope, I'm talking about you.
Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting. Saying that other countries don't cover medication is a lie. That's nothing more than trolling, and doesn't merit any kind of response other than to correctly point out that you're an asshole. The fact that I got 3 "likes" on that proves it. If you act like an asshole, you will be treated as such.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 27, 4:30pm
You cited (disposable) income numbers then talked about wealth and wealth distribution.
Why do you put disposable in parentheses? I cited income, not disposable income. The reason I did so was to counter Indigenous' post in which he attempted to prove his point using INCOME charts. I showed that his charts were either manipulated or out of date, and used the same data source his INCOME chart supposedly came from to show that the bottom 20% in many developed countries are better off than in the U.S. If you have a beef with that, please bring it up with Indigenous.
Again, you need to scroll up and actually read the thread. Then you could avoid showing your ignorance as to what we are discussing.
Both wealth AND income are distributed unequally in the U.S. Your nitpick about wealth vs. income is simply not relevant. The point, that continues to elude you, is that in Germany (and that is only one country which happens to be the example we were discussing), the bottom 20% have a greater share of the country's money than do the bottom 20% in the U.S. You seem to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
You will do better by reading it instead of emitting knee-jerk "bullshit."
No, I have read and participated in the thread. YOU are the one who doesn't know what's going on, and as a result are getting on really stupid sidetracks that aren't relevant to the discussion.
hmm, I thought you were trying to prove that the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the US. In any case, I already explained in the previous post why the disposable income numbers are not the full picture. Medicine is much more expensive in the US, and for the bottom 20% in the US, medicine is provided essentially free of charge by taxpayers, yet not reflected in your numbers.
This is merely a supposition on your part, and a weak one at that. Unless you have some DATA to contradict the data that I already posted, your contention that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries remains an unproven assertion, and everything you write here remains an irrelevant sidetrack. You might want to start by reviewing the discussion we already had about transfers before you make wild assertions about what you THINK you know about them.
You aren't providing any information here. You're merely selectively choosing OTHER people's contributions and picking away at them with stale criticisms. "Blah, blah, blah, your chart doesn't show x, y, z..." Great, post a chart that DOES show xyz and prove that it makes a difference. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Before calling people stupid, you can do better by paying attention to what I wrote: I made a specific distinction between in-kind transfer for medicine vs. cash transfer. The numbers you cited did not include in-kind transfer for medicine.
Nope, you just babbled about irrelevant nonsense. Please review the info on transfers. I won't waste my time re-posting things that you couldn't be bothered to read the first time.
The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI. In many of these cases, the taxpayer paid medical bills alone can easily bankrupt a person making only the median of the top 20%; $80k can be burned up in a US hospital in a matter of a month (if not a week), not a year. The cash value of in-kind medical transfer is much lower in Germany.
Simple solution, prove it. We'll be waiting. and waiting and waiting and waiting.
BTW people collecting social security are called retired not unemployed. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are actually retired people in Germany also. They collect Germany's version of social security. Why don't they count?
Dating cost more only because I make substantially more than median income or
what the girl does so I'm expected to pay for the dates; whatever I pay, she
doesn't have to, so it should not be included in the budget of a person at or
below median income.
I was talking about you, you said less than $1000 per month consistently for last 20 years. I said bullshit. It is still bullshit.
You proceeded to look up the cheapest stuff you could at Costco and post the prices for same. As if that has anything to do with what you have been doing consistently for the past 20 years.
If you buy only the cheapest meats available; changing from chicken breast to pork chops to chicken drumsticks; and you buy the cheapest fruits and vegetables regardless if you like them or not, and get some crazy deal on milk and car insurance. Not to mention depending on climate - either have your house extremely hot or extremely cold - and you don't have cable TV (but obviously an internet connection, one of the many monthly expenses I did not bring up and you didn't offer either.) You also apparently take your trash to the dump yourself.
And you dont go to the gym, or take vacations, or drink anything except water, never go out, or take someone on a date. You also never buy a snack or take a lunch break with coworkers.
Your car has lasted 14 years (probably 10 years after the warranty has expired) without any major repairs needed (or new tires, brakes, or even an oil change) and you never wash it apparently.
Then yes, I submit - you have lived the past 20 years on the equivalent of less than $1000 per month.
What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."
Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.
Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.
I am done arguing with a lying idealogue. Good job convincing exactly no one with an IQ over 105 of anything, ever.
Nope, I'm talking about you.
Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting.
You volunteered such information yourself earlier.
Saying that other countries don't cover medication is a lie.
Not for the meds that you are taking.
That's nothing more than trolling, and doesn't merit any kind of response other than to correctly point out that you're an asshole. The fact that I got 3 "likes" on that proves it. If you act like an asshole, you will be treated as such.
Everyone has an asshole. If 3 "likes" by yourself means you don't have an asshole, you need more help from the doctors.
Why do you put disposable in parentheses? I cited income, not disposable income.
Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.
Both wealth AND income are distributed unequally in the U.S. Your nitpick about wealth vs. income is simply not relevant.
Wealth and Income are drastically different concepts. Someone, specifically 1% of the population, will always in the top 1% by wealth. Income is a major part of what enables one to move into that 1% and displace someone else who had been in 1% previously. If you are against the top 1% in income, then you are against social mobility.
The point, that continues to elude you, is that in Germany (and that is only one country which happens to be the example we were discussing), the bottom 20% have a greater share of the country's money than do the bottom 20% in the U.S. You seem to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
Your numbers do not show that at all. Your numbers do not refer to the bottom 20% in wealth at all. Many of the people in the bottom 20% in income are retired homeowners, who can have far greater net worth than the typical 20-somthing 30-something making median wage at $50k, simply because the former owns his house whereas the latter not only doesn't own house but have a huge student debt.
On top of that, your numbers do not include the medical benefits that the bottom 20% by income in the US receive. The bottom 20% by income receive significant medical benefits, which are far more expensive in the US than in Germany. Many in the bottom 20% by income choose to be there precisely because they have medical needs.
This is merely a supposition on your part, and a weak one at that. Unless you have some DATA to contradict the data that I already posted, your contention that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries remains an unproven assertion, and everything you write here remains an irrelevant sidetrack.
Indigenous already posted previously that the poor in the US has much bigger homes and far higher car ownership rate than other developed countries.
You aren't providing any information here. You're merely selectively choosing OTHER people's contributions and picking away at them with stale criticisms. "Blah, blah, blah, your chart doesn't show x, y, z..." Great, post a chart that DOES show xyz and prove that it makes a difference. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Actually picking apart your citation is a much more logically correct way of refuting you than if I had actually cited something else. You cited some numbers and charts to prove your point. My pointing out the breakdown in logic between your citation and your thesis is the correct refutation. If I had cited something else, then we'd be in a pointless my data vs. your data argument.
Simple solution, prove it. We'll be waiting. and waiting and waiting and waiting.
Prove what? That the bottom 20% in income after tax and transfers consists mostly of people relying on government transfers? That data is freely provided by IRS. Or do you want proof that a hospital stay can burn up more than $80k/mo? Do you want a proof that the sun rises in the east every day to go with them?
BTW people collecting social security are called retired not unemployed. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are actually retired people in Germany also. They collect Germany's version of social security. Why don't they count?
German retirement age is 65. In the US, for those in the bottom 20% quintile in income, eligibility is at 62. In case you did not notice, an even more important point that I made regarding SSI (Supplemental Security Income) which is funded by general fund not Social Security and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). There are currently over 14 million people on Supplemental under the age 65 and nearly 9 million people on SSDI, total 23 million compared to about 40 million people on Social Security at age over 65. It should be fairly obvious that those 63 million people comprise the bulk of the bottom 20% in income. The entire 23 million under 65 are probably in the bottom 20% by government statistics as illegal income and payment under the table wouldn't be counted, and their legal income have to be under a threshold to qualify SSI and SSDI.
I was talking about you, you said less than $1000 per month consistently for last 20 years. I said bullshit. It is still bullshit.
I said personal expenses not including housing expense, and the average over 20+ years was consistently under $1000. And that statement was truthful.
You proceeded to look up the cheapest stuff you could at Costco and post the prices for same. As if that has anything to do with what you have been doing consistently for the past 20 years.
I did not have to look up, simply because those were the things that I bought. I don't think anyone would consider fresh whole salmon as the cheapest stuff. In fact, by the pound, it is probably more expensive than 80% the food sold at Costco. The cheapest animal source food is probably egg. I did not include any egg in my list because I don't like eggs.
If you buy only the cheapest meats available; changing from chicken breast to pork chops to chicken drumsticks;
Not drumsticks yet, but I do switch between chicken breasts and pork loins depending on whichever is less expensive. In case it is not obvious, chicken breast is the leanest and most expensive cut on a chicken. Pork loins are also the leanest and most expensive cut on a pig (aside from specialty items or the same pork loin sliced the other way with the T bone still on for aesthetic reasons). Drumsticks, thighs and eggs are much less expensive than boneless chicken breast, and whole ham can be had for less than $1.50/lb at grocery store sales.
and you buy the cheapest fruits and vegetables regardless if you like them or not,
No I do not. When watermelon is available for $0.25 a pound or even $0.15 a pound, there's plenty room for cherries at $4/lb fitting into the $1.50/lb average. I had a quite a lot of cherries this past summer, and lobsters (half a dozen of them this past fall season at around $4-6/lb)
and get some crazy deal on milk and car insurance.
Nothing crazy. You can buy those everyday at Costco. Even the gas stations and the convenient store near my house are selling milk at $2.99/gallon. Car insurance is low thanks to not having a new car.
Not to mention depending on climate - either have your house extremely hot or extremely cold
The house is designed and insulated very well.
- and you don't have cable TV (but obviously an internet connection, one of the many monthly expenses I did not bring up and you didn't offer either.)
I don't watch TV, so no cable expense for me. Internet is covered in the phone bill or via work internet.
You also apparently take your trash to the dump yourself.
I did when I lived in different towns previously. Nowadays, the city picks it up at the curb side, covered by the housing expense that I pay in property taxes.
I said personal expenses not including housing expense, and the average over
20+ years was consistently under $1000. And that statement was truthful.
I don't argue with liars bro. Discussion with you is pointless. Anyone who is curious about this - in order to believe Reality, go here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap
You must believe that he is able to consistently buy some this stuff stuff 25-40% under the national average.
And you dont go to the gym, or take vacations, or drink anything except water, never go out, or take someone on a date. You also never buy a snack or take a lunch break with coworkers.
I have my own gym equipment at home. Milk was an explicit item in my list. Canned frozen OJ is an even less expensive substitute in winter months than the fresh fruits cited in my list. I already said dating expense is not in the personal expense list because what I pay on dates is a result of my income being substantially above median. When I was at median income or below, I did not go on extravagant dates or vacations.
Your car has lasted 14 years (probably 10 years after the warranty has expired) without any major repairs needed (or new tires, brakes, or even an oil change) and you never wash it apparently.
I change oil myself, and wash the car with garden hose. Repairs have been running at about $500-1000 every 3 years or so; i.e. $15-30/mo on average. Frankly, if not for my business needs, I don't even need a car. The car actually makes money for me on usage due to mileage method tax deduction being higher than the actual expense on the car. The actual cost of running the car is about 10cents to 15cents per mile right now on an ongoing basis; even factoring in the initial cost of acquisition adding another 25 cents per mile so far (and declining) . . . that's 35cents to 40cents per mile, whereas the mileage rate is over 50cents per mile. So every mile I drive for business I actually earn money. Too bad I don't have the time to drive a shitload of miles.
Then yes, I submit - you have lived the past 20 years on the equivalent of less than $1000 per month.
What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."
Most people do not live alone. So the per head expense would be even lower than 1BR living. BTW, I live in a 2BR in a building owned by myself. When I was married, it was a 4BR single-family for me, my wife, my kid and a live-in nanny; so utilities should be split 3 or 4 ways for the analysis that we are doing here, my share was even lower than what I have now by myself. Dating expense is excluded from the list for the reason I cited: every cent I spent on dating was something my GF at or below median income didn't have to spend. I didn't spend much on dating when I was at or below median income myself. Dating for young people don't have to be expensive. If you choose to rack up a huge credit card debt on expensive dates, it's your own problem, by choice!
BTW, what I have is not a "filthy beater car" either. It still shines when rinsed or after rain, and no visible body rust anywhere.
Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.
No lies are necessary. What I presented were truths. If you choose to eat hotdogs and raman then waste your money on expensive dates while not having a commeasurate income, that's your own problem, not mine. Just don't expect taxpayers to subsidize your wasteful living.
Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.
What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage? Somehow that's my fault?
I am done arguing with a lying idealogue. Good job convincing exactly no one with an IQ over 105 of anything, ever.
It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing the same with people having sub-90 IQ.
I said personal expenses not including housing expense, and the average over
20+ years was consistently under $1000. And that statement was truthful.
I don't argue with liars bro. Discussion with you is pointless. Anyone who is curious about this - in order to believe Reality, go here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap
You must believe that he is able to consistently buy some this stuff stuff 25-40% under the national average.
You can go to the Costco nearest you to find confirmation of my prices. If you choose not to shop around for your money, that's your own problem.
I'm no bro of fools who thinks the least expensive and most cost-effective foods are hot dogs and raman.
What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A
healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage?
Somehow that's my fault?
I love dick swinging contests. I have done 8 lifetime full IMs including 2 in the past 8 months and was a conference champion swimmer in college. My weight is within 5 pounds of when I was 22.
It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing
the same with people having sub-90 IQ.
Not on this site.
What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A
healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage?
Somehow that's my fault?I love dick swinging contests. I have done 8 lifetime full IMs including 2 in the past 8 months and was a conference champion swimmer in college. My weight is within 5 pounds of when I was 22.
Talk about dick swinging contests here, or should I just accuse you of lying without any basis like you are prone to do? I'm actually at the same weight as when I was 22.
It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing
the same with people having sub-90 IQ.Not on this site.
How would you even know? I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in swimming did some damage to your brain.
How would you even know?
Aptitude observation of both your followers and your antagonists.
How would you even know?
Aptitude observation of both your followers and your antagonists.
In case you didn't notice, my followers actually have the intellect to read and absorb real books on economics. . . whereas my antagonists are pompous fools who don't even know the most basic concepts in economics while pretending to be market gurus, those on psychotropic drugs, and those whose brain is damaged by under water sports :-)
I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is
eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in
swimming did some damage to your brain.
Good one. If true, it actually reflects poorly on you that you decide to engage those beneath you.
I learned long ago that debate with morons is unavailing.
I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is
eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in
swimming did some damage to your brain.
Good one. If true, it actually reflects poorly on you that you decide to engage those beneath you.
I learned long ago that debate with morons is unavailing.
I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't have many people to talk to. I have learned long time ago how to put up with and put down people with lower IQ . . . a necessary skill in life for people with exceptionally high IQ.
I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't
have many people to talk to.
I suggest you move to Pasadena or Cambridge, you'll find a whole world of people to talk to.
Stop wasting your gift trolling internet forums.
I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't
have many people to talk to.
I suggest you move to Pasadena or Cambridge, you'll find a whole world of people to talk to.
Stop wasting your gift trolling internet forums.
I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres" from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the past decade.
I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres"
from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the
past decade.
Well then, it would seem your previous comment about having few to talk to would be hyperbole.
And by the way - the internet is vast. The expected value with no selection bias of the number of daily visitors to patrick.net with IQ above 140 would be 22. (Based on ~15k daily visitors) Including yourself, that leaves 21 others.
Maybe your opportunity for debate aren't as few and far between as you thought. Maybe I am one of the 21.
I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres"
from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the
past decade.
Well then, it would seem your previous comment about having few to talk to would be hyperbole.
Not a hyperbole. Even in my current neighborhood, the overwhelming majority of the population do not have IQ over 140. I do miss some of the Cambridge years.
And by the way - the internet is vast. The expected value with no selection bias of the number of daily visitors to patrick.net with IQ above 140 would be 22. (Based on ~15k daily visitors)
I do not have time to read 15,000 posts daily on pnet; nor do I think there are 15,000 posts or even 15,000 unique visitors to pnet every day.
Including yourself, that leaves 21 others.
Maybe your opportunity for debate aren't as few and far between as you thought. Maybe I am one of the 21.
Keep dreaming ;-) IQ above 140 is a fairly lonely place, as you can see from the statistical distribution. I have not yet met a single person with IQ above 140 who would disagree with me on the basic nature of the issues discussed here. The only point of occasional disagreement is whether it is profitable to use the government to exploit "the fools" and for how long. There isn't much a debate when two parties agree . . . and the topic of how to exploit "the fools" is somewhat distasteful for me.
Keep dreaming ;-) IQ above 140 is a fairly lonely place, as you can see from the
statistical distribution. I have not yet met a single person with IQ above 140
who would disagree with me on the basic nature of the issues discussed here.
LOL. I am fairly sure Krugman or Keynes had IQ's over 140.
As for me, don't know what my IQ is, though I would guess it is below 140. Have never taken a formal IQ test - though I have taken tests that are accepted as substitutes for IQ tests by various high IQ societies. Have never been in the top .15% of those, though they have a high amount of selection bias in their score distributions.
The chart in the link below has me pretty close - unsure of its validity.
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm
And by the way, I think p.net advertises 15k unique daily visitors.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 28, 4:08am
Nope, I'm talking about you.
Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting.
You volunteered such information yourself earlier.
I did not, you lying troll.
Not for the meds that you are taking.
No proof, just more trolling.
Everyone has an asshole. If 3 "likes" by yourself means you don't have an asshole, you need more help from the doctors.
You can only "like" your own post once, dumbshit. If I did them myself, then it would be only one "like", such as YOUR posts have. LOL.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 28, 4:32am
Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.
So what?
Wealth and Income are drastically different concepts. Someone, specifically 1% of the population, will always in the top 1% by wealth. Income is a major part of what enables one to move into that 1% and displace someone else who had been in 1% previously. If you are against the top 1% in income, then you are against social mobility.
WTF? What kind of stupid angry rant is that? Again, you don't seem to have the slightest clue what we're discussing here. I would respond to what you wrote, but I have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make. It's just nonsensical babbling.
Your numbers do not show that at all. Your numbers do not refer to the bottom 20% in wealth at all. Many of the people in the bottom 20% in income are retired homeowners, who can have far greater net worth than the typical 20-somthing 30-something making median wage at $50k, simply because the former owns his house whereas the latter not only doesn't own house but have a huge student debt.
On top of that, your numbers do not include the medical benefits that the bottom 20% by income in the US receive. The bottom 20% by income receive significant medical benefits, which are far more expensive in the US than in Germany. Many in the bottom 20% by income choose to be there precisely because they have medical needs.
Again, Indigenous attempted to prove his point by submitting charts of INCOME, so I refuted him with data on income. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with Indigenous. What part of that didn't you understand?
If you believe a chart of wealth distribution would show the U.S. as having the most equal distribution in the world, you are sorely mistaken. The U.S. is the fifth worst in the world in that regard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth
I'm no longer going to listen to you nitpick away at other people's data unless you have a point to make. As I said, if you believe the data that has been presented here is missing something crucial, and if taking that crucial element into account would show that the U.S. has the most equal wealth distribution in the world, then PROVE it, or else shut the fuck up.
Actually picking apart your citation is a much more logically correct way of refuting you than if I had actually cited something else. You cited some numbers and charts to prove your point. My pointing out the breakdown in logic between your citation and your thesis is the correct refutation. If I had cited something else, then we'd be in a pointless my data vs. your data argument.
Translation: You can't prove anything you're saying because you're making it up as you go along.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 28, 5:56am
Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in swimming did some damage to your brain.
Stay classy, Reality. I wish I had a 140 IQ like you so I could come up with great intellectual arguments like that one.
indigenous
2014 Jan 28, 6:05am
Again, Indigenous attempted to prove his point by submitting charts of INCOME, so I refuted him with data on income. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with Indigenous.
No you didn't. CP demonstrated that the graph was based on household income and not individual income and I conceded that point. The graph was mislabeled.
The graph does show that the lowest quintile was as well off as most European countries on the graph. Neither you nor CP refuted this.
But as I indicated these graphs are notorious for being misleading and difficult to attribute to one input.
Here is an article about inequality by the Sowell man:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/28/the-inequality-bogeyman-n1785593
In it he speaks of the importance of the division of labor and comparative advantage. This is why we have a higher standard of living.
Comparative advantage works because of the exchange of ideas. No one really is the sole owner of an idea, Steve Jobs did not think up his ideas in an ivory tower, he got them from others and then added to them, and most importantly brought them to fruition in the market place. Same as Rockfelllar, or the much hated Koch brothers or Bill gates.
The idea of IQ really is not that important, I'm pretty smart as far as I know, which is what I hear from the dumbest people I meet.
What is important is the willingness to communicate. This is the Mason Dixon line on the subject. If one wants to stay sequestered, a slave to his own ideas then that is what I call stupidity. Especially when knowledge is so easily obtained with the internet.
The idea of Austrian ecomomics and Libertarianism places a premium on freedom. The key to freedom is knowing the rules of the game. This is not arrived at through math as math is an analogy (for economic purposes) but not the logic required to follow Austrian economics.
Homeboy
2014 Jan 28, 12:58pm
No you didn't. CP demonstrated that the graph was based on household income and not individual income and I conceded that point. The graph was mislabeled.
The graph does show that the lowest quintile was as well off as most European countries on the graph. Neither you nor CP refuted this.
But as I indicated these graphs are notorious for being misleading and difficult to attribute to one input.
I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be as wrong as you are and still stick to your argument - to base your entire argument on a particular premise, have that premise proven wrong, ADMIT that the premise is wrong, yet still insist you are right. The captain always goes down with the ship, I guess - LOL.
Here is an article about inequality by the Sowell man:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/28/the-inequality-bogeyman-n1785593
Snore....
« First « Previous Comments 213 - 252 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,210,766 comments by 14,390 users - Waitup online now